mohair at singingfalls.com
Fri Dec 18 23:57:27 EST 2009
Luther argued that the book of James be removed during the days of the
reformation. The Book of the Revelation has been removed and restored to
canon several times over Church history. Same is true of the Apocrypha.
It was several hundred years before the writings of Paul were considered
"canon". 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude were tossed in and out also because
they quote the the Psuedepigrapha. Yeshua Himself quoted the
Psuedepigrapha. Does that mean it should be canon when from our
perspective now we see teachings that conflict with our present day
understanding of canon?
The Apostles were not enlightened until after the resurrection of Yeshua
Mashiach. The scripture says, "Then opened He their understanding so
that they might understand the scriptures."
Not too many have discussed the matter of the writings not being subject
to human understanding. Not many have commented on the fact that the
only scriptures extant at the writings of Paul were the "old testament"
and that when he mentions scripture *that* is what he is referring to.
What we call canon did not just flop into being at the passing of the
apostles. It was all hard won. So what is the meaning of all this
discussion? For me, I fear and tremble at the darkness of the days and
the paucity of the church. I come utterly dependent on Yeshua to
shepherd me through the English translations with the meager tools
available to me. I also rejoice that regardless of the translation or
the transliteration the Holy Spirit (Ruach Kodesh) is able to lead me
into all truth because I do hunger for it earnestly.
I am enjoying what I catch of the discussion.
Pastor David wrote:
> All I need to show is a single irreconcilable conflict
> between the proposed Book and the rest of the Books and
> it is excluded.
>>> The Bible is a self affirming document - an integrated
>>> whole - this was the unifying principle of the process
>>> of gathering the canon -- recognizing God in the Books
>>> -- listening to His guiding Spirit.
>> Well, let's say I decide that the Gospel of Thomas is
>> clearly more authentic than the other gospels and think
>> that, perhaps, I can integrate James, Hebrews and
>> Revelation with that. I call it the Timothean Canon. It
>> probably would work OK from your definition, although the
>> result would clearly be heretical.
>> How do you show me (or, rather, my heretical alter ego
>> here) I am wrong?
More information about the Linux4christians